Iraqi Lawmakers and US Presence

[lixy]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
If JeffR’s media are the “first to report” a given topic, why are they any less viable than al-Jazeera or Alternet?

Sorry, Lixy - can’t complain about one and not the other. [/quote]

Give me a f8cking break! His stories aren’t fresh. Some are more than a year old.

What kind of topic is that where a story needs more than a year to become public.

EDIT: oh wait - on a second read: is Lixy complaining because the story has to be picked up by mainstream media in order to be valid, and JeffR’s independent media’s reporting of it can’t be trusted?

No, you idiot! His sources don’t even qualify for the title of media. They’re a bunch of blogs and include the MKO’s infamous IranFocus. My independent media’s ownership and financing is totally transparent. They have nothing to hide, unlike his.

And no, a story isn’t valid just because it hit the mainstream. It’s valid if it’s verifiable. My story is. His allegations are…well, allegations.

Get it?

[Gkhan]

[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:

If Iran is afraid we can take them out easily, then maybe they should shut the hell up already.

Now, can you find any recent statement that threatens to harm US citizens or destabilize the US government issued by an Iranian official? I seriously can’t think of any.

Lixy, if you could remember, I did quote a site, an article about Iran threatening to distroy all of the anglo-saxon civilization. But because you did not believe my source, the threat was treated as un-real.

Bush may have threatened to use action, but the Iranians CLEARLY ARE using action against us and Nato.

Here’s what you’re missing: The US occupation of two adjacent countries is perceived as the action against them.

Why would they feel threatened? Maybe because of the crimes they committed against the US and it’s citizens?

What would you have said if the Soviets occupied Canada and Mexico?

Number one, both Canada and Mexico are friends of the US. If the Soviets invaded, there would have been hell to pay.

Number two (how many times should I repeat myself?) Iraq and Afghanistan were both enemies of Iran. Now the enemy is gone, instead of sending us flowers, they are sending us road side bombs and mortars. How is this justified, just the fact that we are next door?

You said you were not in favor of the current Iranian government. (I don’t actually believe this for a moment). Who exactly do you want to rule them?

A smooth democratic transition. The Iranians determining their own future. Vox populi, vox dei!

WOW, we actually agree on something. This is perhaps the 4th time! How would this happen when revolutionary guards have attacked, beaten and killed their democratic opponents who want change?

And why exactly would you accuse me of lying? [/quote]

Because you said you wanted to see Iran stand up to America and kick them out of the region. Why not say you would like to see Iran befriend the US, tackle the wahabbis, and stop the conflict in the ME, in Iraq? Wouldn’t that be a more constructive way to go?

[vroom]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
You questioned my ability to reason by reducing my position to emotionalism.
[/quote]

Emotionalism? No, I questioned your ability to reason, which has nothing to do with emotionalism. Look for another way to interpret my statement.

Essentially, you weren’t after an honest discussion between two people who happen to disagree. So, please don’t pin the “I’d have to agree with your viewpoint” on me.

Actually, I am, but I’d really like to see comments that give the impression that someone is able to think through and/or see various issues.

But hey, I should have expected no less from the guy who played the racism card against me in another thread. Which is a funny thing, since I decided to wave that off as a knee jerk emotional outburst.

LOL. Look, if you make a statement that implies crime is caused by race, due to lack of language skills, don’t be surprised if people question your motives.

I’ll do that every time I see it, because racism is still around and it needs to be watched for.

My statement stands, and emotionalism has absolutely nothing to do with it. However, I do wish you could argue the political topics as well as you are arguing this (whether or not you are “right” or if I disagree with your statements).

Go figure.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]lixy wrote:
(text)[/quote]

Poor Lixy - shown to have no sense of objectivity again. The only good media is radical left-wing media, aye?

Remember, you didn’t attack the veracity of the story - you attacked the source. You are spinning in circles.

[Gkhan]

[quote]lixy wrote:

Common sense tells me that Iran collaborating with Al-Qaeda is ridiculous. They would not do that, because of the serious potential consequences. They’re also gaining nothing from doing it, the risk of getting caught is too high, and the consequences could be dire.

[/quote]

They got caught smuggling arms to Hezbollah. Hense the “Axis of Evil” # 2 speech from Bush. (They were not included in the first speech).

Why wouldn’t they supply arms to the Taliban? Or do they only deal with Shia? After all, as you say, we’ve got then sorounded and their afraid for their lives (after three decades of terrorizing Americans). So why wouldn’t they help the Taliban?

Your arguement doesn’t stand up.

[vroom]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
lixy wrote:
(text)

Poor Lixy - shown to have no sense of objectivity again. The only good media is radical left-wing media, aye?

Remember, you didn’t attack the veracity of the story - you attacked the source. You are spinning in circles.[/quote]

LOL.

Lixy generally has an internally consistent viewpoint based on a different philosophy.

Instead of picking on fairly minor pedantic issues to try to discredit his views, which is really just cheap theatrics, why not find things of a more substantial nature?

In particular, if you are willing to consider his viewpoint as real, and not some “trick”, whether or not you agree with it, then his statements make a lot of sense within that context.

And no, to be clear, I have very different views than Lixy, but I do find it very helpful to get closer to understanding the views of the “rest” of the world.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]lixy wrote:

When you’re under a dictatorship, dissent can become very costly. This is self-evident and I don’t see what problem you have with the assertion.[/quote]

You made a false distinction that under Saddam’s regime, innocent civilians were more safe than under current situation. That is false, because you can’t exclude “political opponents” outside of “innocent civilians”.

Nor can you exclude Kurds and Marsh Arabs, both of whom were slaughtered under Saddam’s regime in the hundreds of thousands.

But hey - if you would just keep quiet, you were ok, right?

So interesting how you are so content with the rule of Saddam, being a humanist and all.

It’s not apologism. It’s telling it like it is.

It is apologism.

“Since pacifists have more freedom of action in countries where traces of democracy survive, pacifism can act more effectively against democracy than for it. Objectively the pacifist is pro-Nazi.” -George Orwell.

Iraq was better off with Saddam.

And Africa and the Middle East were better off under British rule. Perhaps the sacrifices made to gain independence weren’t worth it?

Go talk to an Iraqi mother then come back to me.

You have one move - you whine and snivel about civilian casualties, as if no one but you has considered that tragic cost. Muslims slaughter Muslims at a faster rate than any Western action, yet you are very selective who you cry for.

That makes you a fraud.

You know where the blame lies for suicide warfare in Iraq? Muslims themselves targeting other Muslims.

Oh, and go talk to a Kurd or Marsh Arab mother, or the relatives of someone who had the courage to disagree with your beloved secular tyrant, and come back to me on your “super” theory of how life was so much better under the Butcher of Baghdad.

[JeffR]

[quote]lixy wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Your response to my sources was weak.

The rest of us understand the implications of iran arming al qaeda and the taliban.

Just for fun, lixy, give me 3-4 sources you find reliable.

Honey,

It’s not about the sources. When a story’s got substance, the source don’t really matter much. For that it must be: transparent and verifiable like my story. All one has to do to verify it, is to go to the Iraqi parliament (granted, not the safest place to be) and check the transcripts.

About the accusations of Iran arming Al-Qaeda, I must say that I start getting suspicious when, somebody accuses somebody else of something without proper evidence. My critical nature I guess. It’s most important in the context of international relations, and often, national security will be invoked as the reason for not disclosing the sources. And we all know the abuse that can result from such things. See the WMD scam. That’s why one must remain cautious and always double check what’s presented as “facts”.

I understand the implications of Iran arming Al-Qaeda, and that’s why I said that I’d condemn them as soon as I get proof of that happening. Common sense tells me that Iran collaborating with Al-Qaeda is ridiculous. They would not do that, because of the serious potential consequences. They’re also gaining nothing from doing it, the risk of getting caught is too high, and the consequences could be dire.

Now, if you have ANY evidence backing that up, please provide it. Otherwise, stop trying to build a case on nothing but suspicions. Don’t you people ever learn?[/quote]

My little wilted flower,

I ask once again, what sources do you consider reliable?

I know why your responded thus. You don’t want me finding and linking your favorite sources. Second, you don’t have the time nor inclination to look up everything your favorite sources have said on the subject BEFORE giving them to me. Finally, I’ll bet you have a sneaking suspicion that the old adage of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” will be proven true once again.

If you won’t give me your favorite sources, then you are de facto surrendering the argument.

JeffR

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]vroom wrote:

Lixy generally has an internally consistent viewpoint based on a different philosophy.

Instead of picking on fairly minor pedantic issues to try to discredit his views, which is really just cheap theatrics, why not find things of a more substantial nature?[/quote]

Lixy can’t go an argument without discrediting himself through his clumsy hypocrisy. This is precisely the “bad faith” error we discussed in another thread - Lixy doesn’t meet the argument on its merits, he hangs on ideology.

Looks substantive to me. But let me guess - we are all due for another lecture on “seeing through the issues and being able to reason”?

In particular, if you are willing to consider his viewpoint as real, and not some “trick”, whether or not you agree with it, then his statements make a lot of sense within that context.

I have always considered his viewpoint real - real and real simple - then, when I attack his viewpoints on the merits, he dissolves into an ideological defense and ignores rational arguments.

That is his problem - and presumably yours - not mine.

And no, to be clear, I have very different views than Lixy, but I do find it very helpful to get closer to understanding the views of the “rest” of the world.

So do I, but Lixy is not a complicated creature - in fact, I can practically write his answers for him when an issue comes up. That isn’t because I am a genius - it is because Lixy is a one trick pony with very little depth.

In this Quixote-like quest to make sure you “understand” diverse viewpoints, you get bogged down in wasting time on simple and often worthless viewpoints just because they happen to be “different” - different doesn’t always mean valuable, though I suspect you have yet to mature enough into realizing that.

And by the way, there is nothing particularly novel about Lixy’s left-wing radicalism - its assumptions are always the same and its conclusions are always the same. What is to learn?

[vroom]

Lixy,

Thunder raises some excellent points when he gets into the meatier issues of Saddam’s mistreatment of civilians and ultimate responsibilities for many civilian deaths in Iraq now.

While the US can be blamed for the inflammation of anger and conflict in the region (in a general sense), it can’t be blamed for the nature of conflict that Al Queda has chosen.

I’d honestly suggest reassessing the way you interpret things, somewhat, in that you do seem to cut too much slack for civilian violence and terrorist actions in response to US actions or as an alternative that is better than US actions/intentions.

[Headhunter]

The whole Middle East is not worth one American life. Pull out then bomb the whole region back to the Stone Age. Fuck them and fuck their oil. I’d rather pay $8/ gallon than sent one more dime to the land of lunatics and murderers.

They don’t want democracy? Let 'em have Allah and all his good graces.

[vroom]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
So do I, but Lixy is not a complicated creature - in fact, I can practically write his answers for him when an issue comes up. That isn’t because I am a genius - it is because Lixy is a one trick pony with very little depth.[/quote]

Yes, yes, you can write anyone’s posts around here, can’t you? It is because Lixy has an internally consistent viewpoint… though he does have some learning to do, which I suspect he will, if you can focus on the real issues instead of lame pedantry.

In this Quixote-like quest to make sure you “understand” diverse viewpoints, you get bogged down in wasting time on simple and often worthless viewpoints just because they happen to be “different” - different doesn’t always mean valuable, though I suspect you have yet to mature enough into realizing that.

Given that the US is at war with an ideology, it would make sense for the US to understand the viewpoints of Muslims who are not extremists. However, if you feel that is unwise, then more power to you.

And by the way, there is nothing particularly novel about Lixy’s left-wing radicalism - its assumptions are always the same and its conclusions are always the same. What is to learn?

LOL.

You yourself cling very strongly to particular set of ideals and concepts. Most of us do. Both the left and right have valid issues to raise. This is why so many people follow and believe in varying ideologies. They have things to offer.

Similarly, both liberals and conservatives have underlying points of value, below the political bullshit rhetoric, that need to be considered seriously and balanced in some way.

Anyone who cannot see and concede some of the points of their opponent is inherently blinded to some degree based on their own ideology.

As I’ve said before, I think I have seen Lixy change his stance here and there, as he’s come to argue points here on the forums, and I’m pretty sure his understanding of issues from a North American perspective has greatly increased.

There is room for most of the nutballs around here to learn a few useful things from Lixy too… even as distasteful as that might sound to some.

[vroom]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The whole Middle East is not worth one American life. Pull out then bomb the whole region back to the Stone Age. Fuck them and fuck their oil. I’d rather pay $8/ gallon than sent one more dime to the land of lunatics and murderers.

They don’t want democracy? Let 'em have Allah and all his good graces.[/quote]

Did you forget to take your meds again?

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]vroom wrote:

Yes, yes, you can write anyone’s posts around here, can’t you? It is because Lixy has an internally consistent viewpoint… though he does have some learning to do, which I suspect he will, if you can focus on the real issues instead of lame pedantry.[/quote]

Well, I can write those that are extremely predictable - we all probably can. It is matter of knowing exactly what is coming next.

And Vroom, in full honesty - don’t accuse others of “pedantry”. Just don’t do it. This is a good faith attempt to let you know it means little when you accuse others of being pedantic. You know this.

You yourself cling very strongly to particular set of ideals and concepts. Most of us do. Both the left and right have valid issues to raise. This is why so many people follow and believe in varying ideologies. They have things to offer.

Do you really wonder why you have been accused of content-free writing? Read above.

Similarly, both liberals and conservatives have underlying points of value, below the political bullshit rhetoric, that need to be considered seriously and balanced in some way.

Thank you, Vroom. Again, I want to keep this above the belt, but you are beginning to drift into a familiar mode for you: mundane lecturing on “what is important” when we all are perfectly aware of these nostrums you offer up as wise insights.

Anyone who cannot see and concede some of the points of their opponent is inherently blinded to some degree based on their own ideology.

Yes, a perfect description of Lixy.

As I’ve said before, I think I have seen Lixy change his stance here and there, as he’s come to argue points here on the forums, and I’m pretty sure his understanding of issues from a North American perspective has greatly increased.

I actually doubt this, largely because the ideology Lixy has adopted doesn’t permit mind-changing. That is not a veiled insult - it is a factual problem, all based on the “bad faith” problems previously discussed.

There is room for most of the nutballs around here to learn a few useful things from Lixy too… even as distasteful as that might sound to some.

Lixy has nothing to offer except one thing - be careful of the excesses of ideology. That is a good lesson for both right and left, to be sure - but that is the only (unintentional) light he has shined into these forums.

[lixy]

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Because you said you wanted to see Iran stand up to America and kick them out of the region. [/quote]

Huh???

Me?

Never!

Where did you ever hear me say that? You must have mistaken me for somebody else.

[lixy]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Remember, you didn’t attack the veracity of the story - you attacked the source. You are spinning in circles.[/quote]

You really got your head up your ass now don’t you?

I’ll retrace the events for you.

Gkhan wrote:
Plus, we disposed of two enemies on their borders, put them in a position of vast potential power and they have the audacity to arm the Tailban, al-Qaeda and al-Sadr against us? Screw these ingrates.

To which I replied:

You’re seriously suggesting that Iran would arm Al-Qaeda? You are seriously misinformed my friend.

At that point JeffR jumped with:

[i]Those in glass houses…

http://www.iranfocus.com/...hp?storyid=7191

http://analysis.threatswatch.o…

http://billroggio.com/…_alqaeda_in.php

http://counterterrorismblog.or…

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.c…

http://www.aina.org/...60518110454.htm[/i]

Sure I attacked his sources (it’s kinda easy when all you have are blogs and MKO backed sites), but, along with refuting the “Iran arms al-Qaeda” myth. Try following the thread before jumping in without swimsuits next time.

[lixy]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
You made a false distinction that under Saddam’s regime, innocent civilians were more safe than under current situation. That is false, because you can’t exclude “political opponents” outside of “innocent civilians”. [/quote]

Of course I can’t. But how many civilians are have a dissident fiber and how many just wanna get by? I’ll let you know: The first is a skinny minority.

Nor can you exclude Kurds and Marsh Arabs, both of whom were slaughtered under Saddam’s regime in the hundreds of thousands.

Right. I shall refresh your memory on what I wrote earlier:

If you, or your entourage, didn’t belong to a separatist movement or a party that wanted Saddam removed, the risks that you’ll be harmed were very low.

He slaughtered Kurds because some Kurds rose up against him, and the same goes for the Marsh. He carpet bombed whole villages to send a message.

Entourage is a generic term that can stand both for people immediately surrounding you as well as indirectly. I made sure to include it seeing how the Kurds were treated and all…

But hey - if you would just keep quiet, you were ok, right?

Right.

So interesting how you are so content with the rule of Saddam, being a humanist and all.

I believe in the right of auto-determination, something you clearly violated by invading.

[quote]It is apologism.

“Since pacifists have more freedom of action in countries where traces of democracy survive, pacifism can act more effectively against democracy than for it. Objectively the pacifist is pro-Nazi.” -George Orwell. [/quote]

Huh? How does quoting Orwell make the case that my relativism can be in any way interpreted as apologism. Did I ever say that what Saddam did wasn’t bad? No. All I said was that what the terrorists are doing now is a lot WORSE.

And Africa and the Middle East were better off under British rule. Perhaps the sacrifices made to gain independence weren’t worth it?

Last I checked, Saddam was an Iraqi, so your analogy dies right here.

You have one move - you whine and snivel about civilian casualties, as if no one but you has considered that tragic cost.

Sometimes, I doubt you ever consider them. After all, they’re probably just figures to you. Wait…you don’t keep a body count this time. Scratch that. They’re not even figures to you…

Muslims slaughter Muslims at a faster rate than any Western action, yet you are very selective who you cry for.

No, I’m not. Were I to address Muslims, I would point out to those atrocities. Seeing how the majority is American around here, it seems appropriate to talk about atrocities committed in your name.

You know where the blame lies for suicide warfare in Iraq? Muslims themselves targeting other Muslims.

True.

I never denied that. But had you not invaded, there wouldn’t have been a suicide warfare to start with. That’s what you don’t seem willing to concede despite overwhelming evidence.

Oh, and go talk to a Kurd or Marsh Arab mother, or the relatives of someone who had the courage to disagree with your beloved secular tyrant, and come back to me on your “super” theory of how life was so much better under the Butcher of Baghdad.

Again, while under Saddam a minority was in danger, nowadays everybody has to risk his/her life to perform daily activities.

It’s gone from bad to worse.

[lixy]

[quote]JeffR wrote:
My little wilted flower, [/quote]

I called you honey. I don’t think your “wilted” was appropriate.

I ask once again, what sources do you consider reliable?

Obviously, I would favor a scholarly concensus. But obviously, nobody in academia would dare make such a wild accusation, let alone concensus, so…

A UN report or any other international body would come in second.

Then, we would have the major European newspapers: El Pais, El Mundo, Le Monde, either one of the Zeitungs (Frankfurter Allgemeine or S?ddeutsche). The Times, Aftonbladet, Corriere della Sera…

The last ones would be the sources with bias on the issue. That is, anyone who has a beef with Iran (Arabs, Israelis, Americans…).

But the most important thing remains that the claims be verifiable.

I know why your responded thus. You don’t want me finding and linking your favorite sources. Second, you don’t have the time nor inclination to look up everything your favorite sources have said on the subject BEFORE giving them to me.

Was the above satisfactory?

Finally, I’ll bet you have a sneaking suspicion that the old adage of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” will be proven true once again.

In this case, I highly doubt it. The stakes are way too high for Iran to be playing with fire.

If you won’t give me your favorite sources, then you are de facto surrendering the argument.

Was such a comment necessary?

[lixy]

[quote]vroom wrote:
Thunder raises some excellent points when he gets into the meatier issues of Saddam’s mistreatment of civilians and ultimate responsibilities for many civilian deaths in Iraq now. [/quote]

Absolutely. It’s nice to have someone with a brain to talk to for a change.

No offense, but I wouldn’t particularily miss John S. once he’s dispatched. And JeffR is so clunched that he doesn’t even try to have a discussion.

While the US can be blamed for the inflammation of anger and conflict in the region (in a general sense), it can’t be blamed for the nature of conflict that Al Queda has chosen.

True. But can we agree that their ruthless intervention laid the grounds for Al-Qaeda to foster in Iraq?

If I get the cops out of a town, am I not to blame for the ensuing chaos?

I’d honestly suggest reassessing the way you interpret things, somewhat, in that you do seem to cut too much slack for civilian violence and terrorist actions in response to US actions or as an alternative that is better than US actions/intentions.

What do you want me to do? Append a disclaimer to all of my posts in which I state that criticizing the US does in no mean condone terrorism? That my anti-Zionist comments have nothing to do with the Jews? That my embracing of Islam don’t mean I reject the teachings of Jesus? That my interest in Chad’s routines doesn’t mean I won’t try something I read in my local paper? You see where I’m going with that?

Condemning terrorism should not even come into question here. It’s just common sense. Al-Qaeda and co and the scum of the Earth. I can’t even understand why anyone would think that I condone them. I lack the words to show my apprehension of those criminals. Suffice it to say that it’ll be some of the harshest stuff imaginable.

Criticizing US foreign policy has nothing to do with cutting slack to the terrorists. Don’t get drawn into the manichean “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” mindset.

[JeffR]

[quote]lixy wrote:
JeffR wrote:
My little wilted flower,

I called you honey. I don’t think your “wilted” was appropriate.

I ask once again, what sources do you consider reliable?

Obviously, I would favor a scholarly concensus. But obviously, nobody in academia would dare make such a wild accusation, let alone concensus, so…

A UN report or any other international body would come in second.

Then, we would have the major European newspapers: El Pais, El Mundo, Le Monde, either one of the Zeitungs (Frankfurter Allgemeine or S?ddeutsche). The Times, Aftonbladet, Corriere della Sera…

The last ones would be the sources with bias on the issue. That is, anyone who has a beef with Iran (Arabs, Israelis, Americans…).

But the most important thing remains that the claims be verifiable.

I know why your responded thus. You don’t want me finding and linking your favorite sources. Second, you don’t have the time nor inclination to look up everything your favorite sources have said on the subject BEFORE giving them to me.

Was the above satisfactory?

Finally, I’ll bet you have a sneaking suspicion that the old adage of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” will be proven true once again.

In this case, I highly doubt it. The stakes are way too high for Iran to be playing with fire.

If you won’t give me your favorite sources, then you are de facto surrendering the argument.

Was such a comment necessary?[/quote]

lixy,

I’m going to give you a few examples off of your list.

However, when I use your sources to prove our contention that iran is arming al qaeda, will you be man enough to admit your error?

Will you take the exceptional (for you) step of condemning a Muslim state?

We shall see.

Exhibit A:

I’ll kill two birds with one stone here:

The Times & The Sunday Times

This is from the TIMES ONLINE and it quotes a UNITED NATIONS REPORT.

This details exact amounts of weaponry going to al qaeda from iran.
It even specifies how the material arrived.

Specifically: [quote]Iran also supplied 125 shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, 80 of which arrived by sea in dhows and the rest by air.[/quote]

Before I spend more time on your home turf, let’s see if this does it for you.

If not, there is more.

JeffR